OCC CIV NOTES 11/10

Board shit
ARGUMENTS FOR INTOLERANCE
Political-
-dissenters are rebels/traitors
-there needs to be one religion in a state for peace
Ecclesiological
-there is one ideal form of the church to be imitated
-there are variable forms that are legitimate and the magistrate gets to decide
Theological/philosophical
-conversion to the truth saves souls, souls>bodies
-it is not 'pwersecution' to use force to promote truth
-charity requires force/true religion/ those converted will be grateful
church of england vs catholics
-catholics will not tolerate protestants
-catholics are required to obey a foreign ruler (pope)
-catholics hold that faith does not need to be kept with heretics

church of england vs atheists
-atheists do not have adequate motivation to keep promises/oaths, therefore can't be trusted

church of england vs unitarians
-to deny the trinity is blasphemy
?jews, ?muslims
-some argue should be admitted to england and persuaded to convert
-some argue should be executed

arguments for tolerations -LOCKE
-charity requires toleration/christ to be imitated- didn't persecuted
-churches vary/ are volunatry/ no one model/ nothing is more important than eternal salvation
-beliefs/worship don't harm others/ "speculative opinions"
-political society exists to protect rights/property
-force can't convince -works on will not understanding/ counterproductive, creates an aversion to those who use it
-if it could, magistrates would mainly enforce their religion
-trinity is a speculative opinion
-jews should be tolerated as christians are
-? muslims ?catholics
-worship belief are different should be tolerated
-if hold dangerous opinions, obey foreign ruler should not
-atheists should NOT be tolerated, not trustworthy
-the intolerant should not be tolerated

LECTURE. goddamn

he goes over what he covered yesterday again, as well as what's on the board
NOW lets start
France
-very large catholic majority
-huge amounts of religious and civil wars, very very bloody during late 16th century
-after all of these wars, they reluctantly decided to make peace, they were just exhausted
-they didn't change their minds about the other side, they just NEEDED to make peace in order not to keep dying and to establish a stable state
-machiavellian argument
-by late 17th century, france is increasingly building monarchical power, using royal edicts, hugely rich and populous
-substantial standing army
-removed most buffers to massive expansion or royal power
-weakness- protestant worship was tolerated
-louis XIV starts to break down this toleration
-in 1685, he finally uses force, sends dragoons into protestant areas and forces conversion or flee (die)
-~70,000 protestants go into exile
-huge number of them convert, but probably maintain protestant worship in private
-THIS is the context of Locke's treatise on religious toleration
-this is the major reason why the english were so afraid of a catholic monarch

In england, James II fled
-but AFTER he fled, he amassed an army in Ireland, tried to use the army to take back england
-mostly french and irish catholics
netherlands
-huge numbers of protestants flee there, even before the edicts of 1685
-still the most tolerant country in all of europe (jews and muslims even tolerated)
-doesn't officially tolerate catholics, unitarians, or atheists
-large numbers of jews, small numbers of muslims there
-Locke goes into exile there, takes an assumed name, and hides
-netherlands has to fight for their toleration
-why does it limit catholic toleration?
-not because of their religion, but because they support 'dangerous opinions' and hold allegiance to a foreign ruler
-catholics have to obey the pope, are not required to maintain faith with heretics
in france again
-the catholic case against toleration against protestants is almost exactly the same as the anglican case against catholics (minus the pope thing)
protestant dissenters in the netherlands
-you'd think they'd support toleration
-doesn't happen
-they want people to be protestant now. woo
dissenters in england
-mostly again want to establish a state religion
-there are three main groups that argue for toleration
-quakers, baptists, unitarians
-quakers and baptists were pretty much the most reviled people in england
what does locke argue
-in locke's eyes, there are two realms, sacred and secular
-sacred is much more important, but secular cannot affect the sacred realm by force
-church is simply an association of human beings who share a common opinion about faith
-you may leave such an association at any time
-rule by bishops, etc, was NOT right
-politics was a trust, but religion COULDNT be a trust
-magistrate had no concern for the care of souls, because he wasn't so committed by god
-if you believe the wrong things, you're essentially fucked over, but YOU'RE NOT HURTING ANYBODY ELSE, so you can't be persecuted
-if the people weren't persecuted, they wouldn't be seditious
-magistrates CANNOT do things with the sacred realm
-if the magistrate messes up secularly, he can fix it no problem
-if the magistrate messes up in the sacred realm, you're fucked over for eternity
-charity is a duty
-nothing is more important than salvation
-christ tolerated, your goal as a christian is to be like christ!
-locke was basically tolerant of everybody (except muslims, to an extent)
-atheists, however, should NOT be tolerated
-no reason to keep your promises if you don't believe in God
-catholics?
-for their beliefs, for their opinions, for their practices, should be tolerated
-HOWEVER those who are obedient to a foreign ruler, who believe that faith does not need to be kept with heretics, who are intolerant, do NOT need to be tolerated
-basically describing catholics?
-doesn't look like he's looking to name ALL catholics, but only those who practice in the above way
James II vs William and Mary
-James raises a french/irish catholic army
-william has an army of mostly protestant expatriates
-war in ireland is EXTREMELY bloody
-william wins, protestants win
-still celebrated today (orange day parades)
-penal laws established, restricting HEAVILY catholic worship and life

OCC CIV NOTES 11/9

FINAL EXAM DECEMBER 15 FROM 2-5

Notes on board-
1688-91 Revolutions
1688/9 Declaration of rights (Feb 13 1689)

William III + Mary replace James II (1685-8)
-vs "illegal" powres claimed by monarchy
-vs suspening and dispensing powers especially re. catholicism
-vs standing army in time of peace/ taxation without free representation
-FOR free elections/trial by impartial jury + judge, rule f law
-FOR broad religious toleration for orthodox protestants in england

Restoration england- a persecuting society
the justifications alleged for intolerance in restoration england-
-political- dissenters are seditious and treasonous
-ecclesiological- 1) the church had a particular form wihch should be imitated from patristic times
2) the church had no one legitimate form, so the magistrate could determine it
3) theological- use of force prompts consideration and conversion and saves souls- it ISNT 'persecution'



LECTURE
why did the revolutions happen?
-monarchy was becoming very strong in the 1680s
-locke flees to the netherlands in exile
-has to hide in peoples houses, live under an assumed name, only go out at night, because people are sent to hunt him down and execute him
-monarchy has money, controls judges + juries, is basically absolutist
-there were still SOME weaknesses in the monarchy
-many nobles still wanted to have rule of law, rule by parliament
-people were still worried about the king's massive power over the judiciary
-support of tories (huge group) was given to the church AS WELL AS the monarchy
-if the king fought against the church, he loses the support of the tories
-the king also might die
-if he dies, his brother gets the throne, his brother's catholic
-1685- French King Louis XIV forced all of his subjects to convert or go into exile or prison
-this scares people in england, huge check on religious freedom is what they see
-there's another nation across the channel- HOLLAND
-FIERCELY protestant
-the ruler of the netherlands is a kind of limited elected monarchy kind of
-'monarch' of holland was MARRIED to the next in line after James II to the throne
-in 1685, the king dies, James II gets the throne
-if he had supported the church, kept limiting franchise but having a parliament, didn't have children, he would have been OK. he did none of these things
-supported religious toleration, but historians question his motives in doing so
-to support religious toleration, James II is required to suspend the laws that persecute catholics in england
-now catholics can hold office, be employed, INCLUDING the army
-does this not just in england, but also in IRELAND, where the majority of the population was catholic
-remodels the franchise to get rid of Protestant dissenters, basically switches the franchise exactly backwards from the previous king
-cuts out of the franchise the entire protestant anglican base, gives the power to about 6% of the population who are dissenters or catholic
-James has a child. bad plan
-people realize that his kid will be raised catholic, the army's catholic, now catholics are employed, this spells return of catholicism. bad for english people.
-William III looks at this and sees that his wife is next in line to the english throne
-sees that if protestant england falls, protestant Holland will soon fall after
-decides to INVADE ENGLAND
-idiot
-invades in 1688/9, on pretense that some nobles have invited him in and also that the child of James II was not actually his child, so there was a fraudulent heir
-said that he was invading to protect his wife's line to the throne
-james decides to flee.
-idiot
-james might have won, even though he's alienated the vast majority of the population
-english gather in parliament to figure out just what the fuck happened
-lots of works were written and sent in (like Locke's treatises)
-some argue that kings cannot be lawfully deposed, James II's grandchildren will come back to claim their right to the throne
-others argue that a republic is the way to go again
-these were the extreme arguments
-moderate arguments- william and mary now have the throne, we must now obey them, however they got the power
-William Sherlock writes 'Case of Allegiance'- huge huge HUGE circulation (>30,000 copies in an electorate of ~100,000)
-another argument- the king, by fleeing, has abdicated, rule passes to the next in law
-this would be his son, but his son's not legitimate, so mary gets it
-they write up the declaration of rights, present it to the new king, he 'accepts' it
-when he accepts it, he doesn't really agree to it persay, but whatever

Locke
-theorist for armed resistance (ends up being unnecessary)
-people have rights to establish any sort of government they wish (again unnecessary)
-pretty much completely ignored
-his works really come into play in teh american revolution
Religious Intolerance
-restoration england is a society of persecution
-last time in english history where everybody tried to secure religious uniformity by coercive means
-argued for 'holy violence'
-the magistrate needs to make 'pious use of the sword'
-thousands of dissenters imprisoned and killed
-to hold office or earn franchise, you had to take the sacrament
three arguments offered to justify this policy
-first (political)
-other religions were dissenters and seditious, caused bloodshed in the past, so kill them
-for a society to be secure, only one religion could exist
-stable society is necessary
-if people disagree with religion, they will fight, not stable!!
-second (ecclesiological)
-EITHER- the church has a particular form which should be imitated, primitive form of the church
-OR- the church has varied over time, so the MAGISTRATE determines what is best
-third (theological or philosophical)
-inherited essentially from Augustine
-'when the saving gifts of the church were in question, coercive force was a gift'
-coercive discipline was the name of the game
-you should compel people to come into the church, this doing a favor for them
-someone who used force against a religious deviant was to 'save souls'
-Augustine himself converted
-came to realize that he was much better off after conversion
-so the argument is that once people are converted, even by force, they will be glad that you converted them, so use force now
-Augustine's works are CEASELESSLY cited during this time in defense of intolerance
-it's often said that force can't convert people
-Augustine recognizes this, but has an answer
-maybe by using force, you'll read a book you wouldn't have before, or go to church where you wouldn't have before, so it's not the FORCE that converts you, it's the RESULTS
-for Augustine, the use of force was NOT persecution
-persecution was ONLY force against the truth, not against falsehood
-therefore all of the violence being used against people was 'a charitable use of force out of concern of the souls of others'

IP NOTES 11/8

(HOLDOVER FROM LAST LECTURE)
US Policy centers around moving both hierarchy and anarchy towards negarchy, anarchy on the system level and hierarchy on the unit level
-this was especially huge during the cold war
-AFTER the cold war, the US had built up a massive National Security System
-NSS was far, far, far beyond anything ever envisioned before, there was sooo much military power in a 'limited government'
-so after the cold war, the US doesn't move towards cobinding
-this is basically because the US doesn't become hierarchy, but rather maintains its limited government
-essentially, after the cold war the US flip flops roles- from encouraging up-and-coming states to trying to beat them down, because they're competition
neoCons become a large factor in post-cold war decision-making, moves towards old-style european state system
#18 Liberalism (II): Democratic Peace

I Modern Democracy and Peace
Kant's Three Articles
three different articles he wrote
1) republican civic constitution
-a republic is NOT a democracy
-a true democracy is DESPOTIC
2) Pacific Union
-polities that organize themselves in this way will end up with 'amity treaties'
-the amity treaties do NOT constitute authoritative union or government
3) Cosmopolitan Hospitality
-foreigners are treated well
-rights of commerce and trade will be respected
as a system, this isnt really all that different from the realist view
they essentially believe that restraint leads to peace
Democracy as Cause of Peace (4)
1) citizens are gonna bear the costs of war
-war is the 'sport of kings' while the people get killed
2) institutional checks
-executive power is restrained
-wars are made possible because of the secrecy of states and diplomacy
-this is checked by liberal TRANSPARENCY
-with transparency, war goes way way down
3) commerce
-to produce and trade with a country is far superior to conquesting them
4) norms
-democracies are like one another (there is an affinity between democracies)
-with commerce rising, the militaristic tendencies decline significantly
-pacific tendency
Empirical Testing and Five Caveats
are democracies actually tempered this way?
has there been enough time to test the theory adequately?
1) how do you define democracy?
-when you get this kind of definition, you have to discard like 4 or 5 wars just in recent history
2) Great power politics
nobody really cares about small countries, but they're countries, right? not really...
3) geographic
-doesnt matter if two democracies dont go to war if they physically cant
4) timing
-really only post cold war are the times when this shit had been tested
-hasnt really been too much time for democracies to squabble
5) covert intervention
-so when the US overthrows democratically elected regimes, does that count as a war?
Publius Before Kant: Fed-Rep Security before Democratic Peace
federal-republican security ends up being much much more important than kantian democratic peace
republic + federal union yields increase in size yields increase in security
-VI and VIC again?
had it not been for the USA, would there be other democracies in the world?
-look back at 1941-43, when democracies were basically getting shanked one after another, except for the US and just barely Great Britain
-democracies are just GONE without the US, especially in that period
where are these democracies post WWII?
-ALLIED with the US!!
-essentially they exist as an extension of US security- against USSR and china

II Democracies and Non-Democracies
BoP Performance (4)
democracies are a PROBLEM for the balance of power AND for sovereignty
Features of democracies, realists think it's bad, liberals think it's good
1) pacific
-Realists say it invites aggression
-liberals say it avoids security dilemma
2) divided/open debates
-realists say that this leads to SLOW decisionmaking
-liberals say that this leads to BETTER policies, this is the reason that non-democratic states tend to fail, because their policies are just worse
3) democratic norms
-realists say ideology > interests, this is BAD for security (can't have 'sentimental attachments')
-liberals say you make allies this way, and it might just be in your interests anyways
4) limited war decreases
-realists say that conflict is totalized, huge absolute losses
-liberals say that it leads to total victory, as well as reconstruction
Sovereignty vs Intervention (3)
liberal states tend to invade a hell of a lot more than other states, not respecting Westphalian sovereignty
why?
1) Liberal states end up protecting property and assets of their citizens
2) they fight against tyrants
3) co-nationals
-'entangling alliances of unmentable ethnics'
-indians come to US, mobilize a voting block, and india gets nukes. wtf

Subversion and Revolution
liberal states dont tend to overtly fight against states all that much
basically, the US, they say, is the embodiment of an idea, rather than just a state
-this in and of itself is subversive
-promotes 'liberal one-worldism' and the 'end of history'

Nationalist Populism: Diversion Theory
class conflict here, the people (lower class) want to redistribute property
what does the high class do?
-mobilize nationalist sentiment to start a war, keep people occupied
-fun fun fun!

IP NOTES 11/7

#17 Liberalism (I): Republics and Security

I Introduction
Realism, Liberalism, and Republicanism
Realism and Liberalism are both ideas that come from republicanism
Republicanism -> realism
-main ideas
-Anarchy
-balance of power
-society of states
Republicanism -> Liberalism
-main ideas
-defense politics
-commercial peace
-various ideas of unions
Main Questions
Liberalism is an alternative to the hierarchical movement away from anarchy, towards negarchy
-proto-USA is the prime example of a state NOT BOUND by the westphalian model, but by liberal tenets, or something like that

there are differences in kind and differences in degree between polities

II Polis Republicanism
Polis Militarism

Iron Law (I): Smallness
found the lecture! yes!
First "Iron Law"-> polis had to be small, meant military weakness
-tended to depend on various geographic features
-the basic conclusion was that these sort of polities would be rare
-another conclusion- the entire societies would have to be incredibly military-oriented, just to survive (mil virtu)
-fear of commerce
-the polities end up being ILLIBERAL, much less individual rights
-they have to be militaristic and imperialistic just to survive
SOLVING THE SECURITY DILEMMA BREAKS THE FIRST IRON LAW, yields huge polities, etc
Iron Law (II): Expansion
Roman model- security through expansion, also results in the end of political liberty
-as size grows, socioeconomic stratification increases, class conflict increases
-rich get richer, poor get poorer, ends in repression, lack of individual rights, monarchical systems
-expansion gives much much more power to the armies, ends in monarchy
-iron law 2 fucks you over as well

III Early Modern Republicanism
Venice, Holland, Britain are all ANOMALIES
-they have 'virtu ex machina
-having capital and technology means that you DONT NEED TO MILITARIZE YOUR PEOPLE, can focus on commerce, etc
-commerce goes way way up, allows for much much more liberalism
-wealth gets translated into military capability, permits military 'virtu' WITHOUT the associated costs of popular military virtu
Maritime Whiggery
he skipped it?
Constitutionalism and Representation
originally, sizes of polities were limited by the boundaries of direct representation
-once representation was developed, much larger polities are now possible
Enlightenment Repulicanism
Montesque, publius
Kant and Smith are two other scholars of excellence of enlightenment republicanism

IV The Philadelphian System
Four Security Threats
fourfold security threat
Internal and External Hierarchy and Anarchy
Internal- H= Despotism A= Civil War
External- H= Empire A= War

Republican Negarchy
Negarchy- MUTUAL RESTRAINT
-alternative to BOTH anarchy and hierarchy
-characteristics of republics and states unions- NEGARCHIC
Extended Popular Sovereign
Sovereignty- the Ultimate undivided source of legitimate authority
authority- exercise of legitimate power
westphalian sovereignty- autonomy of polity
problem- sovereignty is spread out over the American polity
-solution- DELEGATE SOVEREIGNTY, but make sure that there's no usurpation
-you delegate sovereignty to different organs in such a manner so that they don't coalesce into despotism
-this is essentially checks and balances
-power restraints!!
-ultimate restraint- right of revolt
Cobinding and States Union
how the hell do we get cobinding from the thirteen different states?
why leave anarchy?
-the founders believed that if they stayed in an anarchic system of 13 states, conflict would lead to hierarchy
-the thirteen republics would eventually cease to be republics
-huge problem here
-essentially they replicated their internal republican workings on a larger scale
-they created a 'states union'- negarchy
-this is opposed to a 'state system' in europe, anarchy
Arms Control
founders were EXTREMELY CAREFUL to retain a republican system of arms control
who controls the arms ultimately controls the polity
-they wanted to keep the standing army as small and powerless as possible
-warmaking was another outlet for arms control, left in the hands of the elected legislature
-militia- states armies
-ARMED PEOPLE was the final, biggest check on forced hierarchy
Domesticated Balance of Power
the balance of power here is muffled, rather than thrown away altogether

V Phil in Westphalian
Hiding, Balancing, and Co-binding
essentially, the US is insufficiently socialized, not enough internal hierarchy

Geopolitics of H, B, and CoB
security evaluation
Hierarchy- H (NO) B (YES) CoB (NO)
Republicanism - H(YES) B (NO) CoB (YES)

Logic of US Foreign Policy
the US is essentially forced out of isolationism
-no more hiding allowed anymore
-'make the world safe for democracy'
-they try to transmute anarchy to negarchy AND hierarchy to negarchy
-system-level anarchy goes to negarchy
-unit-level hierarchy goes to negarchy
again, why do we do this?
-we value our limited government constitutionalism, and if we stay in anarchy or the way things are, we LOSE OUR OWN DEMOCRACY
-we're forced towards hierarchy

CoB and Relative Absolute Gains
as violence interdependence increases, absolute losses become VERY HIGH
-IE total war
answer- COBINDING and MUTUAL RESTRAINT (negarchy YAY!)

Raamin Mostaghimi
November 7, 2006
Occ Civ Section 8

SUMMARY FOR JOHN LOCKE'S SECOND TREATISE ON GOVERNMENT

Locke in his second treatise moves away from directly answering his contemporaries (read: Filmer's Patriarcha) to expounding more on his ideals of how a government should be run and why it is established in the first place. Interestingly (perhaps considering Locke's background and pride in his nobility), Locke's ideals result in something approaching popular sovereignty and rule by will of the people. This may just be the best case of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' that I've seen in a while, because while Locke most likely sets out only to protect his own power from the government by assuring limited powers of monarchy and limiting rule by fiat, he ends up giving huge powers to the rest of society as well as a simple matter of philosophical consistency (it's much much easier to generalize and say 'all people have the right to revolt' than it is to say 'group x but not group y has the right to revolt' because then you have to individually justify each decision you make). Locke's idea that resistance is a RIGHT rather than a DUTY, and reserved to ALL people ALL the time, rather than select few in moments of extraordinary need is really something revolutionary at the time, and even today for that matter. The idea that the people of America, for instance, should have the right to just up and say 'we don't like the government, let's have a new one' is something that I at least find a bit troubling, an idea that may lead to great preservation of individual liberties but makes for terrible consistency in governance. Another revolutionary aspect of his thought was the idea that all men are born in a state of equality, rather than some noble and some non-noble, etc. I find this interesting, once again especially coming from such a proud member of the gentry.

QUESTIONS
1) How did Locke reconcile his beliefs of equality with his noble status?

2) Did Locke really 'sell out' when he wrote the Carolina constitution, or was that actually consistent with his writings?